A WRITTEN DEBATE with a LOSER
Peter Ruckman said I’d lose my head if it wasn’t fastened on, ’cause while correcting the A.V., it fell off and
rolled away. And now it is gone. And I can’t look for it, ’cause my eyes are in it. And I can’t call to it, ’cause my mouth
is on it (Couldn’t hear me anyway ’Cause my ears are on it). Can’t even think about it, ’cause my brain is in it. So, I guess
I’ll sit down on this rock and rest for just a minute . . . -- Copied and adapted by Herb Evans
A paranoid defector, from the King James ranks, has appeared on the scene, Gary R. Hudson. Robert Sumner,
Curtis Hutson, and D.A. Waite were now able to hide behind him without exposing their own unbelieving reservations by
promoting Hudson’s material. Gary Hudson, the defector, was flattered by the interest; he was with the big boys now. He
even threw a few flowers to John R. Rice to firmly entrench himself. His modus operandi was —simple distort King
James history, speak "doublespeak," paint a biased portrait of Dr. Ruckman (racial prejudice, liberal abortion views,
heresy, and demon possession), and use a deceptive, disproportionate, and extra-scriptural emphasis on the "originals or
their underlying languages." The King James detractor and defender pretender factions were joined by R.L. Hymers, a resaved, fundamentalized, heresy hunting, ex-Southern Baptist preacher, who wanted a piece of the action, while ladder
climbing in the BBF. He also promoted Gary Hudson and patterned his own attack after him. Gary Hudson, after his
defection, wrote a book and made a tape about Why I Left Ruckmanism. Since then, he has taken an even more negative
position towards the King James Bible, having been given the boot by Dan Waite and the Dean Burgon society. It is to
these efforts that I responded in the following snail mail correspondence with Gary Hudson. It is my hope that the rank
and file Christian will see through such Bible Correcting rhetoric and become more familiar with the Bible Correcting
sophistry that is involved in such arguments. – Herb Evans
THE GARY HUDSON/HERB EVANS DISPUTE
Date: Feb. 1, 1989
To: Evangelist Gary Hudson, P.O. Box 578, Whitehouse, FL 32220
Dear Evangelist Hudson,
I have your tape "Ruckman s False Theory of Inspiration Analyzed," and have listened to it with interest. As I
listened, I was impressed that your entire approach to the King James issue was to find some human flaw, mistake, or
fallibility in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman as if that would prove the King James Bible flawed, mistaken, or fallible. Your
grasping of what Peter Ruckman believes about other things, namely abortion and racial distinctions, to buttress your
argument against the infallibility of the King James Bible is pathetic, to say the least. May I argue that Bob Jones
University is wrong on their theory of a fallible King James Bible, because they are segregationists and had to be forced
to integrate their schools?
May I argue that Terry McLean of Xenia, Ohio is correct in his estimate that the King James Bible is infallible
because he verbally assails Doctor Ruckman regarding "abortion" and "racial matters?" You may convince Dan Waite
and Robert Sumner that you have an argument here, but some of us have been around a while. You quote a great deal of
Peter S. Ruckman and Dave Reese (with whom I have had no small dissension over his ultra dispensationalism but has
nothing to do with his loyalty to the King James Bible), but quote very little Scripture. In fact, you quote only one verse
of Scripture (2 Peter 1:20, 21) to prove your theory and address three of your opponent s proof texts (2 Tim. 3:16; Rev.
22:19; John 10:35) on the defense. Now, to prove someone is a "heretic," you must have scripture, or you better quit
calling someone a heretic! You have not "proved" Peter Ruckman is a heretic! You have only expressed a difference in
interpretation of 2 Tim. 3:16, Rev. 22:19, and John 10:35. The interesting thing about your argument is that you choose
unscriptural terms to prove another man is a heretic, i.e., "translation," "Originals," "Bibles that were originally written in
Greek and Hebrew," and so forth. You accuse any opposition to the changing of the word of God—as a doctrine of
demons, while the only doctrine of demons, which is recorded regarding the word of God, is the changing of the word of
God (Gen. 3; Matt. 4). Nowhere is there a record of a doctrine of demons that opposes changing the word of God! If you
have no scripture to brand a man a heretic, you are an "accuser" of the brethren; go ye, and learn what that meaneth in the
Greek! Since I could not possibly address every quote and statement on your tape, I would like to ask you some practical
questions about the scriptures that you did manage to address.
1. In your efforts to prove 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot mean that the English Bible (King James) is inspired, you say:
“. . . Inspiration is a process . . . Inspiration is a process whereby God gave his word originally. Inspiration
does not refer to a product. What is inspired is a product, but the inspiration of God is the breathing out of the word of
God, it is a process. The words 'given by inspiration’ speak of an event . . . an event that originally produced the word
scripture in both verses. The product of inspiration, the product of the inspiration process is scripture of which
Timothy had a preserved copy . . ." – Gary R. Hudson
Evans: 1. A. If inspiration does not refer to the product and what is inspired is the product, would that mean that
after the inspiration process was over and done, the original manuscripts, on paper (or parchment or whatever), were
NOT INSPIRED???
Evans 1. B. If the Original “product" is not inspired, after inspiration is over and done, how is it superior to what
Timothy had (2 Tim. 3:15)?
Evans 1. C. If the "process" of inspiration produced the word scripture in both verses (15 and 16), how is the
scripture in verse 16 superior to the scripture in verse 15? Are they the same? Is the scripture in verse 15 inspired or
uninspired? Is the scripture in verse 16 inspired or uninspired?
Evans 1 D. Does the "all scripture" product of verse 16 refer to every translation that resulted from the original
"process" of inspiration? How can they be "profitable" for doctrine where they differ? Does it refer to all the Greek and
Hebrew manuscripts? How can they be profitable for doctrine where they differ? Does it refer to the Original
manuscripts? How are they profitable if we do not have them?
Evans 1. E. Is it true that all scripture is profitable for doctrine and furnish the man of God "throughly" unto
"all" good works? If the "product" does throughly furnish the man of God, how is it that folk of your persuasion must go
outside of it to prove your theory?
Evans 2. If Revelation 22:19 refers to tampering with the word of God, in the Greek and Hebrew, does that mean
that you can tamper with any "translation" without impunity? Can you prove that the Original Bible was written in
Hebrew and Greek?
Evans 3. Beside the examples, which you quote, can you give me a list of the "audible" differences between
Nelson’s 1611 King James reprint and the King James Bible, which we are now using? Can you give me the amount of
"audible" differences? How many "audible" differences per revision?
Evans 4. Is the word of God "quick?" "Alive?" [Heb. 4:4 (corrected to 4:12)] Are all the translations alive? Are
the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts alive? Are the original manuscripts alive?
Evans 5. Is the word of God corruptible? If the word of God is incorruptible, is the word of God any translation?
Any specific translation? Any Greek and Hebrew manuscript? A specific Hebrew and Greek manuscript? Is the word of
God here the original manuscripts? Was Peter born again by the Original manuscripts?
Evans 6. Can the Scripture be broken (John 10:35)? If not, which Scripture? The Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts? Translations? The Original manuscripts? Since you are unashamed of your convictions and beliefs, as it
should be, we trust that you will reply and not ignore us. Thank you.
Sincerely, (signed) Herbert F. Evans
February 8, 1989
Dear Mr. Evans:
I am not at all surprised to get a letter from you since you have been so notorious in the past for coming to the
defense of Ruckmanism. This also explains why you would not put your name and return address on the outside of the
envelope, for it may have caused me to discard it. You are most famous around Ruckmanites for your interrogative
pamphlet, Dear Dr. John: Where Is My Bible? propagated for many years through Peter Ruckman’s own Bible
Baptist Bookstore. The man who started me on Ruckmanism gave me this pamphlet of yours ten years ago along with
Ruckman’s Manuscript Evidence. I also distributed your pamphlet to help in convincing people of the Ruckman view.
Of course you tried to make Dr. John R. Rice look like some apostate Bible-rejector, and Ruckman commended you
well for the dirty work. It is you, therefore, who has been the "accuser of the brethren." I’m glad, however, that Dr.
Rice’s books and ministry continue to bear much fruit and inspire thousands for revival, prayer, and soul winning
while your little pamphlets sit in the bookroom in Pensacola occasionally purchased by instigators of the Ruckman
heresy. While you write articles propounding Ruckmanism in The Flaming Torch and the Bible Believer’s Bulletin,
old Dr. Rice’s printed sermons and practical booklets continue to warm many hearts in the service of Jesus Christ.
And now, since I have given up Ruckmanism, I read and use Dr. Rice s material for prayer, evangelism, and personal
work, and have tremendous results. If you were so orthodox on such a basic issue as the word of God and Dr. Rice
was the Bible denying man you tried to make him out to be, why hasn’t your ministry yielded one one-hundredth the
godly influence of his? If you are so right and Dr. Rice was so wrong, certainly you should have some fruit to prove it.
Where is it?You are completely wrong in saying that my "entire approach to the King James issue was to find some
human flaw, mistake, or fallibility in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman as if that would prove the King James Bible flawed,
mistaken, or fallible." The tape you mention is not about "the King James issue," but deals with the Ruckman heresy.
Ruckmanism as clearly explained on this tape, has to do with a man, Peter Ruckman, and therefore any discussion of
that man’s beliefs in connection with his heresy is appropriate.
Ruckman is not the reason behind the King James issue nor the Bible translation controversy. The KJV issue,
originally debated as a matter of Greek texts, has been seized upon by Ruckman to introduce a new and heretical
doctrine: that the KJV English translation is infallible, correcting its own Hebrew arid Greek texts, and containing
"advanced revelation." That point is made very clear on the tape you mention having heard.
I did not quote only one verse of Scripture to “prove" my "theory," as you say, but quoted II Tim. 3:16 and
Rev. 22:19 to also prove my point. Just because my opponent uses these verses as "proof texts" does not mean that I
am limited to being "on the defense" in using them. I revealed how Ruckman twisted both II Tim. 3:16 and Rev.
22:18, 19, and then I used them to refute his logic. This is more than a mere "difference in interpretation”; it is a case
where Ruckman, as all heretics, had to distort the meaning of the very passages that would have refuted his unbiblical
views. As Ruckman has departed from the classical interpretation of II Tim. 3:16 and Rev. 22:19, you, he, nor anyone
else can show that someone before Peter S. Ruckman handled the passages as he did. He twisted them in order to
maintain his unique view of the English, but I am only repeating here exactly what I said on the tape.
Regarding a "doctrine of demons," you are absolutely correct in saying that it is in regard to "changing the
word of God (Gen. 3; Matt. 4)." Our first mother, in the garden of Eden in Gen. 3, committed the same sin as the
Ruckmanites by adding to the word of God (Cp. Gen. 2:17 w/ 3:3). Ruckmanism adds to the word of God, saying that
"advanced revelation" was given through of original sin on the human race! No wonder God says, "Ye shall not add
a group of translators in 1611. Adding to the word of God brought the curse unto the word which I command you . . .
"(Deut. 4:2)! The serpent, as the Ruckmanite, questioned the word of God. Just like you asked Dr. John R. Rice,
"Where is my Bible?" so the serpent said to Eve, "Yea, hath God said?" Ruckmanites, like Satan, come questioning
the word of God. Ruckmanites, like Eve, add to what God originally said. We fundamentalists don’t believe in adding
to God’s word or changing it, but translating as accurately as possible what God said. But Peter Ruckman dares to say
that the work of some translators "corrects" the very word of God it was translated from, putting himself in danger of
coming under the curse of Rev. 22:18, 19. This is a very subtle approach to actually violating Rev. 22:19, under the
guise of doing honor to the word of God. The Ruckman question, which you also probed Dr. Rice with, is the demand
for one exact, inerrant version in order to locate "the word of God." But it winds up questioning and dishonoring the
word of God, the God-given Hebrew and Greek texts. Now I turn to the "practical questions" you asked me about:
Hudson 1. A. In the context of saying that "inspiration does not refer to a product," I was speaking of the
inspiration process ITSELF, which is not an ongoing event in copying and translating the Bible. Since the wording of
the original manuscripts is the PRODUCT of that PROCESS, they were "inspired" indeed. You must distinguish
between the WORK of inspiration and the WORD of inspiration. The WORK is the process itself, and the WORD is
the inspired product. That product was the wording of the original autographs, and that inspired wording is
PRESERVED, but it is not being re-given through the inspiration process which produced the words in the first place.
— Hudson
Hudson 1. B. No one said that the original product was superior to what Timothy had (II Tim. 3:15).
Timothy’s copies were the preserved product of the wording in the original manuscripts, and were therefore not
inferior. — Hudson
Hudson 1. C. Again, I never said the "scripture" of verse 16 was superior to what Timothy had, so you can
stop repeating the question. Yes, the scripture of verse 15 is inspired, and so is the scripture of verse 16. They are the
same. In Ruckman’s false theory of inspiration, he contends for inspired copies which do not match each other and
uses Jer. 36:32 in support of his claim. He does this so that he can claim total inspiration for every word in the KJV
translation, knowing that it does not match the original autographs. I have refuted this error both in my book and on
tape. — Hudson
Hudson 1. D. Now you are multiplying numerous questions in one section. 1 will therefore have to repeat
them for reference here. "Does the 'all scripture product of verse 16 refer to every translation that resulted from the
original ‘process of inspiration?"
ANSWER: Yes, for the O.T. quotations in the N.T. are translations from Hebrew into Greek. "How can they
be 'profitable for doctrine where they differ?"
ANSWER: I never said Timothy’s copies differed from what was given in v. 16. "Does it refer to all the Greek
and Hebrew manuscripts?"
ANSWER: No, because some of these are mutilated texts. "How can they be profitable for doctrine where they
differ?" ANSWER: They are not "profitable where they differ,” but profitable where they can be determined to match
the wording of the original texts. "Does it refer to the Original manuscripts?"
ANSWER: Of course it does. "How are they profitable if we do not have them?"
ANSWER: Because we do not have to possess the actual paper document the words were originally written on
in order to have a copy of those words. That is how they are still "profitable," and they are just as "profitable" as they
were when originally given through inspiration. — Hudson
Hudson 1. E. Question one,
ANSWER: Of course it is, and verses 16 and 17 say it. Question two, ANSWER: We do not go outside of it to
"prove" our "theory." — Hudson
Hudson 2. Question one,
ANSWER: No, for you cannot tamper with any O.T. translations found in the original wording in the Greek
of the original N.T. books.
Hudson Question two,
ANSWER: Yes, see Matt. 5:18 and Rev. 1:8. Also, the KJV translators themselves said that their work was
"translated out of the original tongues," and we know that they used the preserved Hebrew and Greek. Besides, Dr.
Ruckman himself says that the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, parts of the O.T. in Aramaic, and Koine
Greek (The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, 1987 edition, pg. 125). Have you ever taken up this
question with him? If not, why not? — Hudson
Hudson 3. I furnish you with a list of differences given by Dr. Dave Reese. I don’t see why I have to take the
time to list or give the number of "audible differences" for each revision of the KJV. Why don’t you just buy
Ruckman’s book on it? He has a little pamphlet out on "Differences in the KJV Editions." No one needs an entire
"list," "audible" or otherwise. Only a few citations are needed to prove the point being made on the tape. — Hudson
Hudson 4. Yes, the word of God is quick and alive, but there is nothing in Heb. 4:4 about it being "quick or
"alive." Go ye and learn what it meaneth in the English. No, not all translations are alive. No, not all Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts are alive. Yes, the original manuscripts are alive because their words are still in existence. —
Hudson
Hudson 5. No, the word of God is not corruptible. No, the word of God is not "any" translation. A translation
is only the word of God where it is a translation of the word of God. For a "specific translation," the KJV conveys so
directly and accurately the word of God translated out of the providentially preserved texts that we can safely call it
"the word of God. Yes, the word of God is the Hebrew and Greek from which the KJV was translated. Yes, the word of
God is still "here" that was in the original manuscripts. Yes, Peter was born again by that word of God "qiven by
inspiration," and we know that he even had two of the original manuscripts themselves (I & II Peter). — Hudson
Hudson 6. No, the scripture cannot be broken. You ask, "Which Scripture?" - - - -THE scripture (Jn. 10:35).
Yes, the correct line of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. No, the wording OF the original manuscripts that is
preserved. — Hudson
NOW THAT I HAVE ANSWERED ALL 33 OF YOUR QUESTIONS,
YOU ANSWER THESE 14 OF MINE!
Hudson 1. Can you document where anyone before 1950 taught that the King James Bible is an infallible
translation which corrects its own Hebrew and Greek?
Hudson 2. Can you prove that your KJB matches (except for some punctuation and spellings) the text that the
translators gave to the printers in 1611?
Hudson 3. Which reading is "given by inspiration of God" ---"approved to death"(1611) or "appointed to
death" (1169) (I Cor. 4:9)? How do you know? Which reading was in the original text of the translators before
printing? How do you know?
Hudson 4. Is the KJB ITSELF "given by inspiration of God" in English? Is it scripture?
Hudson 5. Which edition of the KJB is THE "A.V.1611?" Does your KJB match the one printed in 1611?
Hudson 6. If neither the KJB nor any one version is absolutely inerrant, could someone still be born again?
Could one know that he was saved?
Hudson 7. Did the Reformation under Luther take place without the word of God? Can you identify Luther’s
"scripture?" Can you identify scripture "given by inspiration of God" in the period of 200 A.D. - 1609 A.D.? —
Hudson
Sincerely yours, (signed) Gary R. Hudson
cc: Peter Ruckman, David F. Reagan, Victor Sears, Dave Reese, Raymond Blanton,
Terry McLean, Don Edwards, Brad Weniger, David Hahn, Charles Perkins, many others.
* * *
March 6, 1989
Dear Evangelist Hudson,
I have your letter; thank you for responding. You did not have to write more than two sentences to reveal your
delight in making authoritative, false, imagined, statements about folk ("false accuser" - devil in the Greek). You judge
my motive for not putting my return address on the envelope as to cause you to discard it. Do you also read minds? I
rarely put a return address on any of my mail (to my wife’s dismay regarding bill payments). Laziness, yes, deception, no!
You don’t know me from a cake of soap, except for my "Dear Dr. John" pamphlet.
Eagerness to get something on someone is no reason to falsely accuse them. (Unlike Dr. Ruckman, I have never
been divorced - in case you or your buddies ever explore that avenue of dirty debate with me also. Shame!) As for me
being an accuser of the brethren, regarding the dialogue between Dr. Rice and myself, you need to have that record
settled also. You say that I "tried to make Dr. John R. Rice look like some apostate Bible-rejector . . ." How John R. Rice
looked was none of my doing. That pamphlet was simply an exchange of letters between Dr. Rice and myself. How he
looked was a result of whatever "he" wrote. I only published the pamphlet after he published his side "only" in the Sword
of the Lord. I did not do a critique on his letters; I only reproduced them. For your information, Dr. Rice dealt with me,
when I was saved, after a fellow, who had witnessed to me, brought me to see him. As late as last year, I purchased a
number of Rice’s books and commentaries from the Sword of the Lord. Since you are so suspicious, you might check
with their records on that. As for my accomplishments versus his or yours, it is a small thing to be judged by folk who
commend themselves among and by themselves. We will all have our chance at the judgment seat. Dr. Rice did write
many good practical booklets; he also contended for the faith in many areas. He also printed in the November 13, 1936
"Sword of the Lord" the following:
"MRS. WILLIAMS 'RAISED’ FROM THE DEAD"
“. . . When the doctors said she was dead, we had prayer and God raised her up and she went back to
work Monday morning.” – Dr. John Rice
Of course, you see that your hero and mine were into Pentecostal miracles at one time. J. Frank Norris,
granddaddy of the movement some of your friends are in, who ditched Southern Baptist evolution long before Dr. Rice
ever did, called Rice a heretic for whatever it is worth. All you have done is switched one fallible hero for another.
(Incidentally, I am no more impressed with a King James only defection than I am with a Jehovah Witness that used to be
a Baptist. However, I know Bobby Sumner is impressed.)
You think that I am wrong about your approach in flawing Ruckman in order to flaw the King James Bible. You
say, "The tape you mention is not about "the King James issue, but deals with the Ruckman heresy." But your tape is
entitled "Ruckman’s False Theory of Inspiration Analyzed." Now, what do "abortion" and "racial" matters have to do
with analyzing a theory of "inspiration?" You say "any discussion of that man’s (Dr. Ruckman s) beliefs in connection
with his heresy is appropriate. Well, Let us discuss Bob Jones forced integration in conjunction with their Bible theories
(which match yours). Let us even bring Doctor Rice’s racial views into the picture. (You bypassed my query, in this
regard, in my letter to you.)
Regarding your usage of proof texts, you are much like a mid or post-tribber who tries to destroy an opponent’s
proof text but does not produce a proof text of his own to establish his own position. None of the four scriptures that you
quoted, yours or other s, prove Dr. Ruckman to be a heretic nor do any of them establish your position. You must have
scripture to brand a man a heretic or you must take the position of a false accuser.
Now, regarding a "doctrine of demons," you maintain that "Ruckmanites" are the ones who are guilty of changing
God’s word rather than those who say, a better rendering or a better version is, or the Greek really says, or the King
James Bible is wrong (Jehovah’s Witnesses included), and etc. Are you saying that any born again, fundamental,
Christian who believes every word of his King James Bible is the word of God (including Jack Hyles mother and many
Christian mothers and grandmothers) is involved in a "doctrine of demons?" Or is a "heretic?" How much of it should
they doubt? Disbelieve? Reject? In order to not be a heretic or be identified with a doctrine of demons? Whose word
should they take regarding the so-called "errors?" Yours? Sumner? Jerry Thorpe (heaven help us)? Bob Jones the racist?
Now, regarding your answers to my questions:
Evans 1. A. On the tape, you say, "Inspiration is a process . . . Inspiration does not refer to a product." Now, after
I pointed out that the product would not be inspired after the process is over and done, you say, "In the context of saying
that 'inspiration does not refer to the product, I was speaking of the inspiration process ITSELF, which is not an ongoing
event in copying and translating the Bible. Since the wording of the original manuscripts is the PRODUCT of the
PROCESS, they were inspired—indeed. You must distinguish between the WORK of inspiration and the WORD of
inspiration. The WORK is the process itself, and the WORD is the inspired product. That product was the wording of the
original autographs, and that wording is PRESERVED (WHERE?), but it is not re-given through the inspiration process
that reproduced the words in the first place."Aside from sounding like someone changed horses in the middle of the
stream and aside from dazzling us with double talk, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If inspiration refers both to
the process and the product, you are re-enforcing the Convictions of King James only folk. If inspiration, as you say, "is
not an ongoing event in copying and translating the Bible," the copies are not superior to the King James Bible, for
neither Copying nor translating constitutes "ongoing inspiration." If saying that your copies are preserved solves your
problem, then my King James Bible is preserved. If you say, regarding 2 Timothy 3:15 that Timothy’s copies are inspired
because they are a product of the originals, then the King James Bible is inspired because it is a product of the Originals.
If this is confusing, it is because I am forced to use your extra scriptural terms.
Evans 1. B. C. D. You seem to make the distinction, on tape, that 2 Timothy 3:15 refers to Copies, whereas 2
Timothy 3:16 refers to the "Originals" that were "given by inspiration. However, when it comes to explaining how the
verse 16 "Originals" can be profitable, to the man of God, in Timothy’s time, you engage yourself in a bit of hokus pokus.
All of a sudden, you qualify these "Originals" as not really tangible Originals but mystical Originals that “are not
'profitable where they differ’ but profitable where they can be determined to match the wording of the original texts (Just
how do you do that, pray tell?)." But then you did say that Timothy had (copies), in verse 15, "is inspired" (l. C.), "the
same" (l. C.), and "not inferior" (1.B.) just like the scriptures that were "given by inspiration," in verse 16. My difficulty
is seeing the distinction between the originals in verse 16 and the copies of verse 15, if there is a distinction. If copies are
inspired, scripture, and the same as the originals in their attributes, why make an extra scriptural unprofitable distinction?
My other difficulty is in understanding how the Greek and Hebrew scriptures can profit a down home, country preacher
who only knows a little Greek (who owns a restaurant and a little Hebrew (who owns a clothing store)? Perhaps, he will
never profit from the inspired word of God that is in only Greek and Hebrew (according to you).
Evans l. E. I asked you if all scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc., why is it that the folk of your persuasion
must go outside of it to prove your theory? Your answer was, "We do not go outside of it to ‘prove’ our theory."
That is indeed interesting, for heretofore all the "scripture" that you have quoted has been in English, from the
King James Bible - and not from what is really the inspired word of God. I suspect that you are preaching in English also.
On the authority of what you have been saying, you are committing a grievous sin in not preaching and contending from
what you know to be the true word of God, the Hebrew and Greek text. On top of that, you have repeatedly used history
to present your ease. Now, most folk would agree that history is not inspired nor is it inerrant nor is it infallible in any
language. Now, a person is a hypocrite if he says one thing and does another!
Evans 2. I sense some evasion in your answer. When I asked whether you could tamper with any translation
without impunity, based on your insistence that Rev. 22:19 referred only to the Hebrew and Greek scripture, I was not
referring to the Greek scripture translating the Hebrew Scripture. May I ask clearly, can you tamper with any English
translation without impunity? I did not ask you what Peter Ruckman says about the underlying language of the Original
Bible. I asked you can you prove that the entire Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek? Proof text? Will you admit that
it is an assumption?
Evans 3. Omitted due to Gary R. Hudson’s non-answer to my request for “audible differences” between the
original 1611’s first printing and what we use now.
Evans 4. After the "smoke" from your answer clears (I guess you want me to say, regarding Heb. 4:4, "living" as
does the interlinear, but then I was never good at guessing), would you tell me how you can tell the "living" Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts from the "dead" ones, since saying "not all . . . are alive" implies some are alive? Which ones are
alive? If "not all translations are alive," are any translations alive? Which, if your answer is not "none?"
Evans 5., 6. If we can, as you say, "safely call it (King James Bible) 'the word of God’,” can we safely call it the
inspired word of God, or must we call it the uninspired word of God? If Peter was born again of uncoruptible seed,
having some of the original manuscripts (before or after conversion?), were you born again of uncorruptible seed (Please
define what your uncorruptible seed was in tangible terms.) If the scripture cannot be broken, can we "safely" say that the
King James Bible is scripture? I would appreciate clearing up the confusion in your answers before we get into anything
else. I am answering your questions, only because you would, no doubt, rail about it publicly if I didn’t (as you have done
with others). Here are my answers:
Hudson 1. Can you document where anyone before 1950 taught the King James Bible is an infallible
translation which corrects its own Hebrew and Greek?"
Evans: No! [Documentation of this has since been made by me and others — Herb Evans] I really do not need
to; my beliefs and convictions are not based on what other men have taught or do teach. However, I will document a
man’s views that coincide with mine. Perhaps, this will do:
“A university man met Bunyan on the road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan, ‘How dare you preach, not
having the original Scriptures?’ ‘Do you have them - the copies written by the apostles and prophets?’ asked Bunyan.
‘No,’ replied the scholar. ‘But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.’ ‘And I,’ said Bunyan, ‘believe the
English Bible (Geneva) to be a true copy, too.’” John Bunyan, The Immortal Dreamer, p. 38 by W. Burgess McCreary,
copyright 1928 by the Gospel Trumpet Company, Anderson, Indiana.
Hudson 2. Can you prove that your KJB matches (except for some punctuation and spellings) the text that the
translators gave to the printers in 1611? – Hudson
Evans: No I can’t even prove that they gave it to them in 1611. I don’t know of any printed books, of that
volume, that would match their manuscripts. If you allow printers’ punctuation and spelling errors, why not other
printer’s errors?
Hudson: 3. Which reading is "given by inspiration of God" --- "approved to death" (1611) or "appointed to
death" (1769) (1 Cor. 4:9)?
Evans: Wrong date, Gary, see "appointed to death" (1616) and "apoynted to deeth" Tyndale (1525). – Evans
Hudson 3.a. How do you know?
Evans: I have Tyndale’s New Testament!
Hudson 3.b. Which reading was in the original text of the translators before printing?–Hudson
Evans: Probably Tyndale’s.
Hudson 3.c. How do you know?
Evans: Lucky guess!
Hudson 4. Is the KJB ITSELF "given by inspiration of God" in English? --Hudson
Evans: Of course! Gary Hudson taught me that the product of inspiration is inspired and is scripture! In fact I
have an interesting quote from page 84, Why I left Ruckmanism, "In the translation process, the words of the original text
are given an exact equivalent in another language. That is why we can safely refer to the King James Bible as the 'Word
of God for it is an equivalent of what is in the original text we can pick it up and say, 'This is God’s inspired Word.’"
Hudson 4. a. Is it scripture?
Evans: Since we can "safely" say it is the word of God, we can “safely" say that it is scripture. Yawn!
Hudson 5. Which edition of the KJB is THE "A.V. 1611?"
Evans: The A.V. 1611.
Hudson 5. a. Does your KJB match the one printed in 1611?
Evans: No.
Hudson 6. If neither the KJB nor any one version is absolutely inerrant, could someone still be born
again?
Evans: If you can get saved reading a gospel tract, with a scripture portion, I suppose so. –Evans
Hudson 6. a. Could one know that he was saved?
Evans: Yes, unless he was a Charismatic.
Hudson 7. Did the reformation under Luther take place without the word of God?
Evans: Beats me! I think they had some problem with little popelings not wanting the people to have the word of
God in their own language. I don’t know why they were so afraid. Maybe, they didn’t think it would be inspired. —
Evans [Gary get’s bent out of shape on this.]
7. a. Can you identify Luther’s scripture? – Hudson
Evans: I think I saw one once, I understand that Hitler destroyed most of them. Perhaps, Dr. Ruckman can tell
you; I understand that he was reprinting them. – Evans
Hudson 7. b. Can you identify scripture "given by inspiration of God" in the period 200 A. D. - 1609 A. D.?
Evans: No, that was way before my time! These answers, (much like the questions), are not based on scripture
and are therefore subject to human error, but since some folk would rather talk history, manuscripts, and Ruckman to
muddy the water, what can one do about it? Sincerely, Herb Evans
March 13, 1989
Dear Mr. Evans:
Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1989. You did not have to write more than one word the first time to
reveal that you are a Ruckmanite, for I happen to have more of your materials than the Dear Dr. John pamphlet
(Bible Believer's Bulletin & Flaming Torch articles). Note the following about your letter:
1. Your attempts to discredit the ministry of Dr. John R. Rice are evident, even though you may buy his books.
Ruckman himself buys them for his bookstore, but then turns around and slanders Dr. Rice as "a filthy-mouthed
gossip" and "religious huckster."
The accusations against Dr. Rice by J. Frank Norris for "holy rollerism" (Pentecostalism) were unfounded,
as Dr. R. L. Sumner has carefully documented (Man Sent From God, Updated Edition, Sword of The Lord, pgs. 97
113). This wicked attack on Dr. Rice's ministry by Norris came during the Binghampton, N.Y. crusade, where so
many hundreds were converted. Therefore, the labeling of Dr. Rice "a heretic for whatever it is worth" IS as it WAS
THEN WORTHLESS! I am sure that you are also aware of Ruckman's use of your letters to Rice in a two-tape series
on "Dear Dr. John," where he further vilified the name of Dr. John R. Rice. Your purchase of Sword of The Lord
books impresses me about as much as the Watchtower's printing of the King James Bible. — Hudson
2. Since it is now evident that you own a copy of my book on Ruckmanism, I don't see why I should belabor
answering questions about the relationship of Ruckman's racism and his false views of the KJV English. All of this
material is detailed in the book, including a section on how racism and abortion are related issues. — Hudson
3. The four verses (II Tim. 3:15, 16; Rev. 22:18, 19) were quoted, interpreted in context, and then shown to be
twisted by Ruckman to prove his heresy. This was a proper approach, and would hold for exposing Jehovah's
Witnesses on John 1:1. If we handled the verses incorrectly and Ruckman "handled the passages' properly, I
challenge you to do your own exposition of them and prove that he is right and that we are wrong. THE VERY
"PROOFTEXTS" RUCKMAN APPEALS TO DESTROY HIS HERESY, AND THEY ARE AND WILL CONTINUE
TO REMAIN OUR PROOFTEXTS AGAINST HIS OWN THEORY! — Hudson
4. No, we are not saying that everyone who "believes every word of his KJB" Is a "heretic" or following
"doctrines of demons." Jack Hyles' mother trusted her KJV, but she did not believe that it "corrects all Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts" and "contains advanced revelations" over what God gave In the first place. THIS is
RUCKMANISM, the doctrine of demons. Please leave off propounding the new "Momma-ism" argument of modern
Ruckmanites ("Momma believed it," "Grandma believed it," etc.). I doubt if very many "Mommas" even knew that
the Bible came from Hebrew and Greek. I ALREADY ASKED YOU IF YOU COULD DOCUMENT WHERE
ANYONE BEFORE 1950 BELIEVED THAT THE KJV IS AN INFALLIBLE TRANSLATION WHICH CORRECTS
ITS OWN HEBREW AND GREEK; YOU FLATLY HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU CANNOT.* Therefore, nobody's
"Momma" believed this doctrine of demons before Ruckman put it out! In understanding that the Bible came from
Hebrew and Greek, Ruckmanites claim that it "corrects" those very texts IN ITS INHERENT INFALLIBILITY of
"ADVANCED REVELATION" OVER THE ORIGINAL TEXTS. If this answer doesn't satisfy you, that is just too
bad. — Hudson [*Note: since this exchange many pre Ruckman documentation has been produced by me and others—
Evans]
5. Saying that the "copies are preserved" does not mean that your "KJB is preserved" ITSELF in the
ENGLISH, for THE PRESERVATION PROCESS DOES NOT GAURANTEE TRANSLATIONAL INERRANCY
INTO ANY LANGUAGE. Preserved COPIES OF the INSPIRED HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS do not make the
"KJB inspired" ITSELF in the ENGLISH, for the INSPIRATION PROCESS DOES NOT GAURANTEE AN
INERRANT TRANSLATION OF the PRESERVED PRODUCT. The KJB is the faithful, accurate translation of the
preserved wording of the original texts, but the KJB ITSELF is only preserved from 1611 on. — Hudson
6. The above clearly refutes your accusations about "mystical originals," for WHO NEEDS THE PAPER
THE WORDS WERE WRITTEN ON WHEN YOU HAVE THE WORDS THEMSELVES? God said that He would
"preserve them" (Ps. 12:6, 7), and indeed He did. — Hudson
7. Let me help you (again!) with your "difficulty." Timothy did not have the orginal document itself that was
written by (i.e.) Moses, but he had a COPY OF THE WORDS (II Tim. 3:15). These words were ORIGINALLY
"given" by the inspiration process (IT Tim. 3:16), but were handed down to Paul and Timothy by Divine preservation
(Ps. 12:6, 7). Inspiration did not recur again in order for Timothy to have a copy of "scripture." Your "other
difficulty" is that of blocking the translational factor out of your mind when discussing both inspiration and
preservation, for it is through TRANSLATION that any "down home" person of ANY LANGUAGE gains "profit"
from the word of God. — Hudson
8. We are saying that we do not have to go outside the Bible to prove the DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION OR
PRESERVATION. We have no "theory" to present. On the other hand, it is perfectly proper to appeal to known
history when discussing something ABOUT the Bible, but it is not necessary to do this for DOCTRINE (II Tim. 3:16).
Now, WHY DID YOU HAVE TO GO "OUTSIDE" OF "THE A.V. 1611" TO TYNDALE IN ORDER TO PROVE
THAT I COR. 4:9 WAS CORRECTLY RENDERED IN THE ORIGINAL KJV BEFORE PRINTING? Look who is
"saying one thing and doing another”–––Mr. Herbert F. Evans! --Hudson
9. The King James translators themselves welcomed their readers to seek alternate renditions of some words,
and therefore invited "tampering" with their own work. TRANSLATION is the work of MEN, and although the KJV
translators remain unsurpassed for being both literal and literary in style, you do not have a single verse where God
promises to especially preside in the translating of what He preserves. Therefore, you may safely clarify proper
translation in any English Bible without impunity, BUT YOU MAY NOT SAY THAT AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION
"CORRECTS" THE HEBREW AND GREEK FROM WHICH IT CAME WITHOUT VIOLATING REV. 22:18 & 19,
AND THUS INCURRING DIVINE IMPUNITY! — Hudson
10. I frankly don't care whether or not you asked me if Peter Ruckman believed that the Bible was originally
written in Hebrew and Greek. I produced documentation ANYWAY to the effect that he DOES teach this. This only
reveals the hypocrtical double-standard of Herbert F. Evans, who will rail on us about something that both we AND
Ruckman believe in common! Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe that the "jot" and "tittle" of Mt. 5:18
refer to Hebrew language in the original Old Testament manuscripts. Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe
that the term "law" in I Cor. 14:21 can refer to prophetical writings as well as the Pentateuch (Lk. 24:44). Gary
Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe that the "this people" of I Cor. 14:21 were HEBREWS who spoke, read, and
wrote in HEBREW.
Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe that "the reading of the Old Testament" (II Cor. 3:14) in a
Jewish synagogue was the reading of a preserved HEBREW copy of what God gave ORIGINALLY IN HEBREW TO
THE HEBREW PEOPLE. Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe that the "oracles of God" were given to the
"Jew' (Rom. 3:2), and therefore were not written originally in Swahili. Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both know
that the KJV translators translated what they believed was "out of the original tongues" (Hebrew for the 0.1., Greek
for the N.T.) for both the Old and New Testaments. Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman both believe that the KJV
translators used a N.T. Greek text for that "original tongue" of the New Testament which is evident by so many of the
Greek spellings of words in the KJV English. Both Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman believe that "Alpha" and
"Omega" are the first and last letters of the GREEK alphabet in a GREEK Koine New Testament for a GREEKspeaking world (Rev. 1:8). If you have a problem with what Gary Hudson and Peter Ruckman believe about the
original languages of the original writings of the scriptures, you may take up the issue further with Mr. Peter
Ruckman. Gary Hudson has done his part in answering the question! — Hudson
11. If you are not even willing to admit that you made a simple mistake with Heb. 4:4 when you meant 4:12,
then how will you ever give up the Ruckman heresy? There is no point in prolonged dialogue with the stiff-necked. —
Hudson
12. An accurate and faithful translation OF scripture can "safely" be called "scripture," but ONLY in the
sense THAT IT IS a "translation" of it. This certainly includes the King James Bible. — Hudson
13. You want me to "clear up the confusion” in my "answers before we get into anything else." Actually,
many of these questions are simply a re-wording of the very arguments of Ruckmanism answered in my book (i.e.,
inspiration, preservation, translation, etc.). You will not force me into meaningless redundancy. [cop out – Evans]
14. That's right, I certainly would TELL THE WHOLE FUNDAMENTAL WORLD if YOU failed to answer
my questions! But now, YOU HAVE GIVEN ME FAR MORE TO PUBLICIZE WITH YOUR INTERESTING
ANSWERS THAN IF YOU HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ANSWERS!
Observe:
Re: QUESTION #1: You admit that no one believed what Ruckman claims here for the KJV BEFORE 1950,
and your quote from Bunyan proves NOTHING RELATIVE.
--Hudson
Re: QUESTION #2: You can't prove that the KJV translators gave the printers a Bible to print in 1611, but
you admit that an "original text" of the translators did in fact exist "before printing" in your answer to "3. b." —
Re: QUESTION #3: You use Tyndale's Bible as your final authority on 1 Cor. 4:9 in the KJB. Be careful;
Ruckman may count you eligible as a candidate for the "Alexandrian Cult" (as he has other strong KJV men such as
Dr. D. A. Waite)! —Hudson
Re: QUESTION #4: Thank you for admitting that the "KJB ITSELF" is "given by inspiration of God" "in
English." Now, you use MY REASON for saying that It is "the word of God," WHICH IS NOT THIS REASON AT
ALL. Both in this letter and in the book (as your quote from pg. 84 Indicates), I have spelled out that the KJB Is "the
word of God" in the TRANSLATIONAL SENSE, NOT in the sense of DIRECT INSPIRATION IN THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Thank you for admitting what RUCKMAN has actually been teaching all
along. — Hudson
Re: QUESTION #5 If your KJB does not match the one printed in 1611 and you cannot prove that it matches
the product that the translators gave to the printers in 1611, then you are calling a Bible "the A.V. 1611" that DID
NOT EXIST IN 1611! — Hudson
Re: QUESTION #6: You "suppose" that someone could still be saved and know it even if the KJB nor any
other version is absolutely inerrant, because someone can be saved by reading a tract. AMEN! YOU ARE
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! — Hudson
Re: QUESTION #7: You actually don't know if the Reformation under Luther took place without "the word
of God"!! You have just proven our thesis on the Ruckman heresy: THAT YOU MUST BELIEVE IN ONE EXACT,
INERRANT VERSION TO HAVE "THE WORD OF GOD." You wouldn't dare answer "yes' to this question, for
then we could have asked you the same ULTIMATUM that Ruckman is asking Luther in an imaginary conversation
(Manuscript Evidence, pgs. 9, 10). You don't want to get stuck with the question of "WHICH BIBLE, MARTIN?"
WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY, "WHICH BIBLE, RUCKMAN?" Yes, the reformers DID have a problem with "little
popelings not wanting the people to have the word of God in their own language" because THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH SAID THAT THE LATIN VULGATE WAS AN ABSOLUTELY INERRANT VERSION! The Church of
Rome, LIKE IN RUCKMANISM, forbad going to the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK
SCRIPTURES for translation! You Ruckmanites accuse us of "correcting the word of God" when we go to the Greek
because you hold the KJB as absolutely inerrant. The Catholic Church accused the reformers of "correcting the word
of God" when going to the Greek because it held to the inerrancy of the Latin Vulgate! — Hudson
PLEASE HELP US WITH A FEW MORE QUESTIONS
1. WAS DR. JOHN R. RICE A "BIBLE-BELIEVER?"
2. IF NEITHER THE KJB NOR ANY OTHER VERSION WERE ABSOLUTELY INERRANT,
HOW
COULD ONE KNOW THAT HE HAD "THE INCORRUPTIBLE WORD OF GOD" TO BE BORN AGAIN BY?
3. SINCE RUCKMAN NOW REFUSES TO ANSWER MY MAIL AND SAYS THAT HE WILL “IGNORE"
ME FROM NOW ON, WOULD YOU ASK HIM FOR US TO IDENTIFY LUTHER’S "SCRIPTURE" THAT HE IS
"REPRINTING?"
4. SINCE "1611" WAS ALSO "WAY BEFORE YOUR TIME," HOW CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOUR BIBLE
AS "SCRIPTURE" AND CALL IT "THE A.V. 1611?"
5. WAS TYNDALE'S BIBLE "SCRIPTURE?"
Our letter battle may be shorter lived than you may think. One more reply out of you may be all that is needed,
and if it is good enough, I may let you have the last word. Thank you again.
Sincerely in Christ (signed) Gary R. Hudson
cc: Dr. D. A. Waite, Dr. R. L. Hymers, Dr. R. L. Sumner, Evangelist Don Edwards, many others.
March 16, 1989
Dear Evangelist Hudson,
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1989. You did not bother to answer my comments regarding you falsely
accusing me in your letter. You also did not apologize.
1. A. I made no attempt to discredit Dr. Rice's ministry. I merely, pointed out, in response to your worshipful
comments, your hero is not God or infallible. Nevertheless, you did not respond to Rice's raising the dead or reporting the
raising of the dead. Dr. Ruckman has never claimed to raise the dead or reported that anyone was raised from the dead,
but then that is not a "doctrine of demons" or is it? — Evans
2. A. Well, three points in a row and three avoidances in a row. Why should you answer? If you got on Bob
Jones' racism, as you do Dr. Ruckman's case, your buddies would probably drop you like a hot potato. Bible Correctors
are allowed to be racists, divorcees, and even have little concubines, on the side, but not "King James Only" folk. Never!
— Evans
3. A. Well, we have established that you don't have very much scripture, haven’t we? At least you can say you
used more than your buddy, Hymers, who didn't use any on his "Doctrine of Demons" tape (even after he said he would).
I will repeat that your four scripture proof texts didn't prove Dr. Ruckman was a heretic! You did prove you disagree
about your shared proof texts. Your insistence that Rev. 22:18, 19 refers to the Hebrew and Greek was not proved by
scripture. You can't even prove, with scripture, the Bible was "originally" written in Hebrew and Greek. The best you can
do is quote Dr. Ruckman the heretic. You must be a Ruckmanite! I've already done my exposition on 2 Tim. 3:15, 16.
You said that you have read my articles. Didn't you? — Evans
4. A. Well, I feel relieved. Now, I can know that if I believe every word of my King James Bible, I am not a
"heretic" or have a "doctrine of demons." Now, I don't even have to get into the manuscripts, correcting Hebrew or Greek,
or advanced revelation, etc. All I have to do is stick with Jack Hyles’ mother. Praise the Lord! I'm not a heretic! I don't
have a doctrine of demons; neither did you granny, if you can hear me up there! Evangelist Hudson says so! — Evans
5. A. The point that you have missed (1. A. of my last letter) is that the "criteria" that you have set up to qualify
the Hebrew/Greek Bible and to disqualify the King James Bible must either qualify both or disqualify both. This vague
nonsense about where they agree with the originals is subjective bunk. If the Greek/Hebrew copies are inspired, inerrant,
and preserved, your whole argument about the "initial inspiration process" is irrelevant or it is "you" who are teaching
"continuous, ongoing," Inspiration. Your ex-cathedra pronouncement "THE PRESERVATION PROCESS DOES NOT
GUARANTEE TRANSLATIONAL INNERANCY [sic] INTO ANY LANGUAGE" is no weightier than Southern
Baptists who make the pronouncement, "THE PRESERVATION PROCESS DOES NOT GUARANTEE. WORD FOR
WORD INNERANCY [sic] IN ANY of the 'COPIES.'" Your statement, the "INSPIRATION PROCESS DOES NOT
GUARANTEE AN INERRANT TRANSLATION OF the PRESERVED PRODUCT" applies also to many Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts. In fact, you have yet to tell us which Greek/Hebrew manuscripts are the inspired, inerrant, preserved
word of God and how you determined them to be so. You say, "the KJB is the faithful, accurate translation of the
preserved wording of the original texts." Well, wonderful! If the King James Bible is "faithful" and "accurate," then it has
no mistakes, or it is not "faithful" and "accurate!" If, as you say, “the KJB is only preserved from 1611 on," then I'm safe;
I was born in 1936. Let those folk before 1611 fend for themselves. — Evans
6. A. You must have some shallow criteria for proof. If the above, your number five, "proves" anything but the
fact that you are able to make dogmatic statements that mean nothing, I want to know about it. Of course, not every
translation or copy is guaranteed anything. So what? You know that I am not referring to the "paper" of the Originals! Do
you "have the words themselves?" Where? In one place? Where? Can "your" eyes contact them? All of them? How did
you determine that those are the "real' words, the "original" words? –Evans
7. A. We agree that Inspiration did not recur. If you read my article regarding God's inspired word not "expiring,"
you would know that. Re-Inspiration is not an Issue here, so let's forget it. If preservation "continues" as inspired
scripture, then the issue really is how God inspires and preserves His word. Unless you can demonstrate why God Is
limited to preservation in only certain languages, the argument is done. How can a "down home" person "profit" from
mistakes in "doctrine," mistakes in "correction" (that's a brain twister), and mistakes in "reproof?" Or should it say, "and
is partly or mostly profitable that the man of God may be partly or mostly furnished unto most good works?" Again! How
do you tell how they are not profitable where they differ but profitable where they can be determined to match the
wording of the original texts? That must have slipped passed you. Yes?
I didn't ask you if It were "perfectly proper to appeal to known history”; I asked you why? Doesn't the scripture
"THROUGHLY" furnish the man of God unto ALL good works? Also, you did not answer why you are quoting and
preaching in English rather than the original, Inspired, inerrant, preserved Hebrew and Greek? You say it is not necessary
to go outside for "DOCTRINE," so you must have some drift of where I am going. Isn't Inspiration a doctrine? Isn't
preservation a doctrine?
Now, look at Mr. Smarty pants try to turn this question back on me rather than answer it. You say, "WHY DO
YOU HAVE TO GO "OUTSIDE" of the "A.V. 1611" TO TYNDALE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT 1 COR. 4:9 WAS
CORRECTLY RENDERED IN THE ORIGINAL KJV BEFORE PRINTING? Listen buddy, It was your specific
question and time frame - not mine! You would have pitched a fit if I wouldn't have answered it. For your info, I wasn't
trying to prove anything but that you were “wrong” in your date of 1769, which was really 1616, and also your
assumption that it was a new rendering. I said "probably Tyndale's!" I also said "Lucky guess!" Have you heard the one
about answering a fool according to his folly? Nice try! You must be desperate–––MR. Evangelist! — Evans
8. A. I'm not interested in what the King James translators said or did. Did you know David committed adultery,
Peter played the hypocrite, and Solomon turned Mormon? I asked you (twice) can you "tamper" with any English
translation without impunity? Your say, "you may safely 'clarify proper translation' in any English Bible without
impunity." I'm all for clarifying. That is what a preacher is supposed to do. Still, I do believe you meant something
stronger like "correct," but I didn't ask that. Let me put It another way. Will God punish a person who capriciously
changes the English in the King James Bible? -- Evans
10. A. You must be a Ruckmanite! I asked you for proof - not what the consensus of you and Dr. Ruckman was.
I'm trying not to be a Ruckmanite. You cite Romans 3:2 which tell us that the oracles of God were given to the Jew. We
assume that is supposed to prove that they were originally written in Hebrew. Still, then, why the oracles in Greek? The
alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8) are not Hebrew. Is this your "proof?" Do you really believe that asking you questions is
"railing on you? Isn't that just a tiny bit of prejudicing the jury? -- Evans
11. A. Is that all you wanted? For me to admit that I cited Hebrews 4:4 instead of 4:12? Then why so cryptic?
("Go ye and learn what that meaneth in the English.") I was looking for some glaring mistake in my wording. All right,
you got me. I gave the wrong reference number. Please don't publicize it. My friends will never forgive me. I'm sorry!
Forgive me! You are right; it is Hebrews 4:12. I am a man of unclean lips and unclean typewriter. — Evans
12. A. You say, "An accurate and faithful translation OF scripture can 'safely' be called 'scripture,' but ONLY in
the sense THAT IT IS a 'translation' of it." Do you make up the rules as you go along? Just where do you get this "safely"
and "in the sense of” stuff? Not in the Bible! You fellows are all alike . . . double minded. You speak out of both sides of
your mouths! I've run into people who consider everything an "absolute." With you fellows, nothing is an absolute, if it
gets you into hot water. — Evans
13, 14. A. You are right; don't clear up the confusion in your answers; you have probably said too much already.
Publicize what you wish; it is a free country. It will save me the expense. Will you mimic your hero, Dr. Rice, and
publish only your side? Frankly, you fellows need a little something to make you look a little bit fair. — Evans
As for my Answers to your Questions
Evans: Question 1. No. I didn't admit that no one believed what Ruckman claims here for the KJV BEFORE
1950. You asked me if I could "document where anyone before 1950 taught the King James Bible is an infallible
translation which corrects its own Hebrew and Greek?" My answer was "NO!" I can't document THAT. The quotation
from Bunyan is very relevant to what I and Dr. Ruckman teach. I didn't think you would like the quotation. Do you
believe what John Bunyan said? What? In a "translational sense." Uh huh!
Evans: Question 2. That is right. I could give you many texts that match, before 1611 (in Tyndale's Bible), but
you didn't ask for isolated texts. You asked, "Can you prove your KJ13 matches . . ." That is a big order for even a city
boy. Don't you read the questions and answers?
Evans: Question 3. I don't think the words "probably" and "lucky guess" would indicate that I was citing a "final
authority." You don't read, do you?
Evans: Question 4. Oh no, I didn't admit to "DIRECT INSPIRATION IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY
THE HOLY SPIRIT." The King James Bible is the inspired product of inspiration. The words of the original text are
given the exact equivalent in the King James English. It was given in the "TRANSITIONAL SENSE." (How is that for an
unscriptural term? You'll be proud of me before it’s all over.)
Evans: Question 5. To say today's King James Bible "DID NOT EXIST IN 1611" because someone like me
cannot prove that it matches the product that the translators gave to the printers, in 1611, is an absurd syllogism. (I can't
prove your mother gave birth to you, therefore she didn't.) I call my Bible what it says on the front page, what the
Publishers call it. Obviously, someone didn't agree with you that there was sufficient reason for calling it something else
(before 1950)!
Evans: Question 6. Thank you for saying I am correct here.
Evans: Question 7. Whatever Luther used, it did not help him much with his beer drinking, persecution of
Baptists, and retaining Catholic errors. I am an ex-Lutheran, and I do not appreciate the reformation as much as you, Bob
Jones, or even Doctor Ruckman. Whatever happened during the reformation, under Luther, or in general, seems inferior
to what took place after the King James Bible. Whatever Luther used, he translates "Easter" and "Easter Lamb" all
though his German Bible, something that is repugnant to your buddies, One would think that could only happen in the
King James Bible, if he listened to you folk. It is one thing to "clarify" an English rendering; it is another to correct or
change the King James English when there is no need of correction or change. If I have proven anything, I have proven
that I do not believe there are any mistakes in the exact, inerrant King James Bible. You may quote my words and not
yours.
Your Other Five New Questions
Hudson New Question 1. "Was John R. Rice a Bible-Believer?"
Evans: This is your classic approach. Ask me a question about Dr. Rice, and then, after I answer, complain that I
am discrediting him. If you mean did he believe in a "mystical" Bible out there somewhere but not in one place, then yes.
If you mean did he believe every word of one Bible anyplace, then no. – Evans
Hudson New Question 2. "If neither the KJB nor any other version were absolutely inerrant, How could
one know that he had 'the incoruptible Word of God' to be born again by?" – Hudson
Evans: Typically, rather than answer my question about your "incorruptible seed,” you ask me a question. This is
quite similar to your previous number six question, in which you were delighted at my answer that someone could be
saved if no versions were absolutely "inerrant." I answered your hypothetical question, but do not accept that premise.
With the understanding that I do not accept your second hypothetical premise, a lost person would not be involved, to that
degree, to know what Bible to look for any more than he would know what church to look for; he would have to hear the
word of God, for faith cometh by hearing the word of God. He would not have to hear it in entirety, as you imply, from
Genesis to Revelation. The portion that he hears would have to be incorruptible "seed." It is not a question for a lost
person to know what to look for; it Is a question of being exposed to a genuine gospel and genuine scripture. We doubt, in
America that would be Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. That is, however, the job of the Bible believer.
Hudson New Question 3. “SINCE RUCKMAN NOW REFUSES TO ANSWER MY MAIL AND SAYS
THAT HE WILL ‘IGNORE’ ME FROM NOW ON WOULD YOU ASK HIM FOR US TO IDENTIFY
LUTHER’S ‘SCRIPTURE’ THAT HE IS REPRINTING?”
Evans: Do your own dirty work, or get one of your buddies to write Dr. Ruckman!
Hudson New Question 4. "Since "1611" was also "way before your time," how can you identify your Bible
as “scripture" and call it "The A.V. 1611?" \
Evans: I can read and hear what I have; I can't read and hear what I do not have (200 A.D.)! I do not read Hebrew
and Greek either! – Evans
Hudson New Question 5. Was Tyndale's Bible "scripture?"
Evans: Where it agrees with the originals, it is scripture (safely).
Hudson: You conclude your letter by saying: "Our letter battle may be shorter lived than you may think.
One more reply out of you may be all that is needed, and if it is good enough, I may let you have the last word." –
Hudson
Evans: Why you little arrogant, conceited, pompous twerp, who do you think you are? Make it easy on your self!
– Herb Evans
March 22, 1989
Dear Mr. Evans:
I have your letter of March 16, 1989, but have struggled hard with whether or not I should bother
answering it. The reason is the dirt ball language you have resorted to in your closing remark: "Why you little
arrogant, conceited, pompous twerp, who do you think you are?" If you would please control yourself, instead of
flying off the handle into such vehemence, I will continue to respond to your mail. But if you keep this up, I will
cut the exchange as fast as I would hang up on you if such came across the telephone wire. Forgive me for failing
to apologize about the true reason for you leaving the return address off of your first piece of correspondence to
me. You have my full apology, and I completely retract the statement.
1., A. You say, "I made no attempt to discredit Dr. Rice's ministry." That statement, my friend, is a lie.
Your pamphlet, Dear Dr. John, does this without question, as does your letter of March 6, 1989. You did this
again by saying that Dr. Rice believed in a "mystical Bible" that he could not put his hands on. I cannot
"respond" to "Rice's raising the dead," etc. because I have never seen the article and am unfamiliar with the
context in which it was made. [You mean you won’t – not can’t. You don’t need any context nor would you
respond if you had any. – Herb Evans] — Hudson
2., A. I cannot “get on Bob Jones' racism” because I no knowledge of such. — Hudson
3., A. I don't answer for Dr. Hymers' tape on Ruckmanism, or how much scripture he uses or does not
use. Now, my letter of March 13th gave six scripture texts for my position on the Biblical languages. If these Bible
verses do not satisfy you, then that is just how it will be.— Hudson
4., A. You go on 3nd on here about my answer on an inerrant KJV. It still, remains to be answered,
however, if you agree with Ruckman on "advanced revelation" and "correcting" the Hebrew and Greek with the
English. In my opinion, you are afraid to be at variance with Ruckman on this in print. — Hudson
5., A. You say concerning my "criteria" for the Hebrew and Greek Bible, "This vague nonsense about
where they agree with the originals is subjective bunk." If this be the case, why did you use this identical
"subjective bunk" in saying that Tyndale's Bible was "scripture" "where it agrees with the originals" (March 16,
1989, page 4, #5)? You cannot draw a comparison between my statement and that of the Southern Baptists
because theirs respects available manuscripts while mine deals with translation of texts. Preservation does have to
do with "copies," but not translating the Bible into other languages. Now, if you can quote me as saying that the
KJV "is the faithful accurate translation of the preserved wording of the original texts," then I have indeed told
you where God's word is preserved. — Hudson
6., A. "This paragraph represents a restatement of the "Ruckmanite Ultimatum" documented in my book.
Your demand for an inerrant version has been dealt with well enough. — Hudson
7., A. If "inspiration" does not "recur," then why do you say that "the issue really is, how God inspires
and preserves His word" present tense? Now, I have given you scriptures as to why I believe that preservation is
limited to the Biblical languages, but you cannot give any scripture that gaurantees preservation outside of the
Biblical languages.
Please understand also, Herb, that you and I are not sitting in court of law cross-examining one another. I
really don't care what you asked, or what you "didn't ask" me. I only made a remark about appealing to known
history. Yes, the scripture does furnish a man "throughly." That's right, we don't have to go to the Greek and
Hebrew. "Ruckmanites" say that we "can't" do this for doctrine. Remember my tape, or need I repeat it? The
Hebrew and Greek texts used for the KJV are certainly "scripture" and "profitable," are they not?
No, I am not "desperate." Please read the March 17, 1989 Sword of The Lord, and you will see why. You
see, Herb, the lid is blowing clean off on the Ruckmanite heresy. Dr. Curtis Hutson read my book on
Ruckmanism, and called and asked permission to publish the second chapter. The truth has now gone out to over
50,000 readers, so why should I be getting "desperate"? So what if my question was in my "time frame"? YOU
are the one who answered it FROM A SOURCE OUTSIDE OF THE "A.V. 1611" How is my 1769 date "wrong"?
Alright, the reading of "appointed to death" was changed in 1616. Does this mean that it is missing from the 1769?
All I did was quote the 1769 KJV as "appointed to death" in I Cor. 4. Was I "wrong" in doing this? You accuse
me of desperation while you grasp straws. — Hudson
8., A. "Yes, I knew about David and Peter, but the part about Solomon turning "Mormon" I find
impossible. Now, Joseph Smith claimed that his religion reached back to Solomon's day, but it has been proven a
hoax. If you mean "polytheism," please understand that the belief in many gods is not peculiar to Mormonism,
and is not "Mormonism" as such. Your question about God punishing someone who "capriciously changes the
English in the KJB" merits qualification. Where it fails to match the Hebrew and Greek [which Greek? - Herb
Evans], no, it does not incur Divine punishment to change it.
I see you skipped No. 9, where I mentioned "correcting" the Hebrew and Greek with an English
translation as incurring Divine impunity. Again, you are afraid to disagree with Ruckman on this in print, are you
not? Since you appear rather evasive on this, let me ask, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE QUOTATIONS MADE
FROM MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE under the "four logical steps" IN CHAPTER TWO OF MY BOOK? —
Hudson
10., A. "No, I couldn't be a "Ruckmanite" for believing that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew
and Greek, as this was the belief of John Smyth, Roger Williams, Benjamin Keach, Martin Luther, John Calvin,
Theodore Beza, B. H. Carroll, Basil Manly, John Broaddus, Luther Rice, William Carey, C. H. Spurgeon, Oliver
B. Green, J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, James P. Boice, G. Campbell Morgan, R. A. Torrey, Charles G. Finney,
etc., etc., etc., yet strangely called into question by a man named Herbert F. Evans in 1989. — Hudson
11., A. "Thank you for finally admitting this, but only as long as you accuse me of being "cryptic." Yes,
you do have an "unclean typewriter." Hudson
12., A. "No, I didn't "make up the rules as I go along," but simply stated something that every Baptist
writer believed before Ruckman taught differently. Now, in your answer to my No. 4 question, you say, "The
words of the original text are given the exact equivalent in the King James English." "Exact equivalency" is a
technique in translating the Bible in a direct, literal prose, as opposed to (e.g.) "dynamic equivalency." I MUST
THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT YOU BELIEVE THE KJB IS THE WORD OF GOD IN THIS
"TRANSLATIONAL SENSE." Here is a question for you: IS ROMANS 6:2 AN "EXACT EQUIVALENT" OF
THE ORIGINAL IN ENGLISH? — Hudson
13., 14., A. "No, I will not "mimic my hero, Dr. Rice, and publish only my side," and neither will I mimic
YOUR hero Dr. Ruckman, and publish only HIS "side," as he did in the BBB for February, 1989. 1 wrote Dr.
Ruckman a letter answering him and documenting twenty-one lies that he told, but he only responded by saying
that I was to "consider myself ignored" because I am a "blank." Yes, I will avoid a tactic practiced by YOUR
hero. "John Bunyan dealt very little with the theory of Scripture. He showed a much greater energy in speaking of
the practical use of Scripture" (Baptists And The Bible, Bush & Nettles, page 83). Any quotations you could make
from Bunyan would not prove or disprove whether he agreed with what you "and Ruckman teach" on an inerrant
KJV. The quote you did cite from Bunyan proves "NOTHING RELATIVE" TO THE QUESTION ASKED YOU
BY ME HAVING TO DO WITH "AN INFALLIBLE TRANSLATION WHICH CORRECTS ITS OWN
HEBREW AND GREEK." No one believed THIS before 1950. Now, - IS THIS WHAT YOU AND DR.
RUCKMAN BOTH BELIEVE? -- Hudson
I serve notice on you as being totally EVASIVE in your answer to my No. 2 question! You said on March
6, 1989, that someone could be born again and know it if "neither the KJV nor any other one version were
inerrant." I Pet. 1:23 says that we are "born again" by the "INCORRUPTIBLE" WORD OF GOD.
Now, -COULD SOMEONE BE BORN AGAIN AND KNOW IT BY THE "INCORRUPTIBLE" WORD
OF GOD IF NEITHER THE KJB NOR ANY OTHER ONE VERSION WERE ABSOLUTELY INERRANT?
You didn't quibble about a "hypothetical question" the first time, and there is no reason why you should
THIS time, either. I have not "implied" that a lost man would have to hear the whole Bible in order to be saved.
Yes, it IS "a question of being exposed to a genuine gospel and genuine scripture." WOULD SOMEONE HAVE
THIS "GENUINE SCRIPTURE" IF NEITHER THE KJB NOR ANY OTHER VERSION WERE INERRANT?
Good-bye for now, and God bless you, brother. Yours in Christ Jesus, (signed) Gary R. Hudson
cc: Dr. D. A. Waite, Dr. R. L. Hymers, Dr. R. L. Sumner, Biblical Evangelist, John Stead, Bible Believer's
Bulletin, David Hahn, Flaming Torch, others.
P.S.: I will be glad to furnish a birth certificate proving that my mother gave birth to me.
March 28, 1989
Dear Evangelist Hudson,
Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1989. You tell me that you have struggled hard whether or not to answer
me; however, your comments, in your last letter, indicate that you were struggling hard before this. The last statement, of
my letter, was in response to your last arrogant, conceited, pompous declaration. Up until that point, the correspondence
was well controlled, except for your suspicious, accusative, Ruckmanite under every bush, illogical, deductions. The
solution is simple, treat me like a man and not a child and get your nose out of the air, and I will respond accordingly. As
for "dirt ball" language. You must be in some "sanctified" company to think that "arrogant, conceited, and pompous" are
dirtball words. As for "twerp," what is "dirtball" about that? Thank you for your apology and retraction.
1., A., 1. There you go again, mind reading my "motives!" I already told you that "Dear Dr. John" was printed,
because Dr. Rice only printed his side, in the "Sword," but you don't and won't listen. Then, of all things, you do the very
thing that I said you would do. You ask me a question about Dr. Rice, and then, after I answer, you complain that my
answer is intended to discredit him. Where do you get your sense of fairness? Do you want me to answer what I think or
what you want me to say or are you trying to set me up or what?
If you had the book, regarding Dr. Rice and the raising of the dead, you probably wouldn't respond. For your info,
the book is called "Rice-Smith Discussion on Divine Miracles and Divine Healing" (page 64) and it is between Dr. John
R. Rice and Elder C.A. Smith. The book was last available from Elder Lee Wright, 3025 S. Central Ave., Ceres, CA
95307. There are numerous other quotes that could be cited; I don't have the time or need or desire to bother with it. —
Evans
2., A., 1. So, you do not know anything about Bob Jones and racism? That is something! It went all the way to
the Supreme Court, was in the paper, on the radio, on T.V. and etc., but you know nothing about it. Strange! Mind you, I
agree with Bob Jones, on the thing, but you cannot ignore it, if you are going to condemn Bible believers for racism and
sidestep Bible Correctors who are of the same mind. Again, your use of other issues, i.e., abortion and racism to argue the
inspiration of the scriptures is "pathetic!" — Evans
3., A., 1. So you don't answer for Hymers' tape. Wonderful! Perhaps, now, you will stop making me and everyone
answer for Dr. Ruckman's books and tapes. Selah! No, I am not satisfied with your six scriptures. I'm glad those passages
were not split into 30 verses, for you would then claim 30 scriptures. No one else will be satisfied with them either. They
are "our" scriptures. Not one of them "proves" your "jumbled" and "double minded" exegesis, and not one proves Dr.
Ruckman a heretic. You may get this, if I say it enough! — Evans
4., A., 1. There you go again, making accusations about what you know nothing. You say that I am afraid to be at
variance with Ruckman on this in print. I have a printed tract, in variance with Dr. Ruckman. Dr. Ruckman, having more
grace and tolerance than the bunch of you, wrote me and kindly told me that it was a free country and to believe what I
wanted. I will not defend or answer for Dr. Ruckman's statements, neither will I supply you with ammunition against him.
I will, however, defend any Bible believer against unfair treatment and dirty tricks and subtle sophistry. I will also defend
the King James Bible and my own statements. — Evans
5., A., 1. You are consistent; rather that answer my point, you try to turn it on me. I’m sure you've heard of
answering a fool according to his folly. I gave you, with tongue in cheek, some of your own "vague, subjective bunk,"
demonstrating that I also could play your silly word game. The pitiful idea, which you cannot grasp, is that you cannot
demand more proof for translation than for copying. The Bible believers’ position is established by scripture, which
assumes the reader’s possession and understanding of the Bible without a hint that it could be otherwise, without a hint of
a need for external evidence. Eventually, both the Hebrew/Greek and the King James Bible positions require the element
of faith. It is merely a matter of "degree." King James Bible believers are a notch above your group; perhaps, your bunch
ought to pray, "Lord, increase our faith!" -- Evans
No, you have not really addressed 5. A. You have not told me "where" the word of God is preserved. You have
made a veiled statement. We may say the same thing, but you do have those . . . ah . . . reservations. It is sort of like a
Seven Day Adventist saying that he is saved by "grace." Of course, you won’t answer the point; it would be obvious that
your use of "accurate” doesn’t mean "accurate,” and your use of "faithful" doesn’t mean "faithful." I understand you
fellows and your own private dictionary! — Evans
6., A., 1. Again, you won’t commit your self to the "whereabouts" of the scriptures or if they are in "one place"
or "how" you determined that they are the "real" words or the "original" words or how you have determined which
Hebrew/Greek, or which TR or MT that the translators used. You can’t say . . . can you? How about a "mystical"
Hebrew/Greek Bible out there, scattered somewhere or everywhere? — Evans
7., A., 1. Do I detect a trace of humanity and fairness in your toned down, moderate statement, "you and I are not
sitting in court of law cross-examining one another." Then why all the detective work with post marks (incidentally,
yours was double struck - I sent it to the Doctor) and return addresses and the nitty picky stuff that you have gone after to
prove your case? I’m satisfied that you realize that I merely corrected your boo-boo regarding the 1616 change. As for
your article, in the "Sword," Curtis and Bobby have been waiting, for a long time, for a "defector" or someone or
something that would excuse hitting this thing hard without exposing their "unbelieving reservations." You provided
what they "needed." They will use you, and then after they are through with you, they will discard you. I possess Bobby’s
and Curtis’ correspondence, and their problem is not with abortion, race, advanced revelation, or correcting the Greek
with the English. All you did is quote the 1769? Ah huh! You didn’t believe that it was a late change (1769) . . . did you?
What would be the significance of a mere 5 year change in regard to your problem with what was given to the printers?
Ah huh! — Evans
8., A., 1. Let us try one more time. Is there "any" situation where God will punish someone who capriciously
changes the English of the King James Bible? I didn’t expect you to literally believe Solomon turned Mormon; that was
another tongue in cheek emphasis (we need some color) on his idolatry and many wives. The point, which I was making,
was that the "writers of scripture" had some hang-ups; therefore, faulting the translators, Dr. Ruckman, myself, or any
other Bible believer is irrelevant to the issue. Besides, I can find more on your side (I’ll mention just one in a bit).
Incidentally, the Mormon’s 8th article of faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is
translated correctly . . ." Ho hum, Ruckmanite or Mormonite? — Evans
9., A., 1. Excuse me, I did skip number 9 inadvertently, an oversight, to be sure. I don’t agree with everything
which somebody says on a tape or in a book. I have already commented (4. A., l.) on my so called "fear" of disagreeing
with Dr. Ruckman. You aren’t trying the "divide and conquer" approach . . . are you? I'll answer for my own books,
articles, and quotes if you don’t mind. So much for the "smoke!"
Let’s talk about correcting the Hebrew/Greek, for it is relative to the issue, although all you are really interested
in is going after what you "think" is the weakest point of the issue in order to try to destroy the inerrancy and infallibility
of the King James Bible (please . . . quote me - zero mistakes). You and your friends use the "concordance" approach to
the matter, implying that "uniform" translation is possible. It is not! Idioms, alone, obviate uniform "word for word"
translation. This is your stumbling block whether you believe it is possible or not. A "word for word" translation would
destroy the meaning of many passages, and you would indeed have an erroneous translation in English.
Since no language has an exact duplicate for every word, which is exactly synonymous, in every case, different
word choices must be made in order to avoid improper translation. A case in point is the use of the word "reprobate" to
translate the underlying Greek word in every place except one - the place where Paul does not wish to be a "castaway."
Call it what one will -correction, clarification, or improvement, the situation does exist. For you to demand Bible
believers to answer every objection that you dream up is not possible, if it was, it would take forever. There are answers,
however, and many are available. Speculation does exist among us as it does you and exists in other issues. That has been
the case historically, since you are so fond of history. When that happens, there are differences of opinion. I have read
some speculation regarding "Easter," which I do not agree with; I have my own views about that. Because one does not
have an answer or speculates, that does not mean that there are errors in the King James Bible.
The translation of the Greek word to "castaway” isn’t a mistake. It avoids a doctrinal misunderstanding in the
English mind. Since you are so well versed in the Hebrew and Greek, which is the "exact," "correct," "original" meaning
of the Greek word "ANOTHEN?" John 3:3, 7? Phil. 3:21? Gal. 4:19? John 19:23? Luke 1:3; Acts 2:5? James 1:17; 3:15,
17? I wonder what language was the scripture which "saith" unto Pharaoh. You’d rather talk about "Easter" . . . huh? —
Evans
10., A., 1. Following the "traditions of men!" Tsk! Tsk! Folk would do well to call in question anything that is
assumed, has no proof, or is not in the faith. Charles G. Finney, huh? That is the one your buddy Hymers likes; Dr. Rice
liked him too. Strange that you fellows would all like one of the biggest heretics that ever lived. — Evans
11., A., I. I would have admitted, a long time ago, that I gave the wrong scripture location, if I would have known
what you wanted. Are you really so happy over such a victory. Your former teacher was happy because he caught me in
some spelling errors (You would love that debate!). — Evans
12., A., 1. Tradition again . . . eh? Perhaps, you ought to get a cigar like the "Baptist" Spurgeon. I’m sorry, I
didn’t realize that when I repeated what you said regarding "The words of the original text are given the 'exact
equivalent’ of the original in English" that you didn’t mean it. I forgot about you fellows and your own private dictionary.
"Exact" doesn’t mean "exact," "equivalent" doesn’t mean "equivalent," "fire" doesn’t mean "fire,” "eternal"
doesn’t mean "eternal," and etc. Have you ever heard of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? They go by the original Greek too!
I’ve already given a brief treatise on ''word for word” translation (9.). If you mean by your question, "Is Romans 6:2 an
'exact equivalent’ of the original in English?" word for word, then the answer is, "No!" If you mean is Romans 6:2 an
'exact equivalent of the original in English to an English speaking person, then "Yes!" The only problem here, however, is
that you have not told us "where" the 'original wording is and how you determined it to be that. Thank you Jesus! Do I
have a witness? Praise de Lawd! Of course, I could play your silly little word games and manipulate your terms "safely,"
"accurate," and "faithful" into my answers, but you wouldn’t realize that it was "tongue in cheek," and I would have to
spend a lot of time explaining it. — Evans
13. 14. A., I. It is not much use to quote any thing to you; you just explain it away. Who do you think you are
kidding? Someone who Bible trains on the sermons in the "Sword" and then sends them his tithe? The context of John
Bunyan’s scholar adversary is more than enough to discredit (oops!) your theory that he was "dealing very little with the
theory of scripture." You hate his quote, because if it takes no one else beyond 1950, it takes ME there. I used Bunyan’s
quote to defend my position and not Dr. Ruckman’s. If you want to know what he believes, ask him. I’ll not do your dirty
work. I told you what I believe; why do you continually ask me about him, will ye also be his disciple?
You are serving notice on me . . . huh? Nose in the air again! Look at the pot calling the kettle black (forgive
me, that was not a racial slur). Since you say that my answer to your number two question was evasive, may I remind you
that your question was substituted for an answer to my question. In laymen’s terms, you answered a question with a
question. You plead that you must qualify your answers, but I am not allowed to qualify mine, even if I don’t accept your
question’s implication. I answered your first hypothetical question, but I did not accept your premise, whether I quibbled
about it or not. I let you get away with it the first time, because I thought you were focusing in on the issue of whether or
not a person could be saved by a "non corrupted" portion of a "corrupted" translation. My answer would be "yes” to that,
to the disagreement of some brethren. I did not let you get away with it the second time, when I saw that you were taking
twisting advantage of something I do not believe. I would never mislead my Bible believing friends into thinking that I
accept the possibility of an errant King James Bible. You will not put words into my mouth . . . Joab! A hypothetical
question deserves a hypothetical answer. My answer is if he could be, he would be! You don’t make the rules for my
answers . . . understand? I've had to rephrase one of my questions no less than three times. Perhaps, you could rephrase
yours to accommodate my objections.
Again, you ask hypothetically, "Would someone have this 'genuine scripture if neither the KJB nor any other
version were inerrant?" Maybe this will help. The King James Bible is "genuine scripture!"— As a whole and in part.
The A.S.V. is not "genuine scripture"—as a whole but certainly would make it in a number of parts. A person can be
saved through the "genuine" parts. Have you run out of questions that border on reality or must you resort to "IF"
questions? If the (log would not have stopped to do his business, he would have caught the rabbit! I think! Thank you for
your blessing, there must be a spark of something in you. You even recognize me as a brother. I enjoyed your “P.S.” You
are getting the idea, just a little bit of color. Loosen up; you’ve been though a lot. – Herb Evans
On February 1, 1989, I was sent 33 questions by a certain Ruckmanite intellectual (footnote28) whom
Ruckmanites appeal to for a few (footnote 29) and has been notorious for coming to the defense of Ruckmanism.
(Footnote 30) I answered all of the man’s questions and sent him fourteen of my own. (Footnote 31) One of the
questions I asked him was if the Protestant Reformation (predating 1611) "took place Nithout the word of God,"
for I knew that he held to the logic of Ruckmanism about an inerrant version. His answer was,"Beats
me!"(footnote 32) Now, CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? His Ruckmanite logic so powerfully controls his thinking
that he is unable to sensibly evaluate Church History in its relation to "the word of God," for "God’s word" HAS
TO BE an inerrant VERSION which he knows full well the REFORMERS did not profess to have! POOR SOUL!
One who swallows the above logic thus comforts himself as a true "Bible Believer"(footnote 33)
Ruckman’s own term for his followers after which he so named his paper, "The BIBLE BELIEVER’S Bulletin"
(footnote 34). Formerly, however, one was considered a "Bible believer" if he was a fundamentalist (footnote 35).
Hence, "Ruckmanism" can just as well be termed "the new 'Bible Believerism." – Gary R. Hudson, THE
FUNDAMENTALIST MESSENGER, EVANGELIST GARY HUDSON MAR. - APR. 1989 Page 6.
We are sorry to report that, to the date of this printing, we have not received a reply to our last letter. We did,
however, receive a newsletter with the above excerpt and PARTIAL quote of ours. The reader, in the final analysis, must
be the judge of the correspondence. He must judge the "poor logic" and to whom it belongs. He must also judge who it is
that uses “doublespeak," and who is really a defender of the scriptures. If this quote of ours is the best thing that he can
publish from the entire correspondence, then I guess we can feel very good about it. Read our lips, Gary Hudson, former
Bible Pretender, Defender . . . zero mistakes! —Herb Evans
Conclusion
We have tolerated Gary Hudson's concordance approach to mistakes in the King James Bible long enough. Their
expectation is that every word, in the Hebrew/Greek, must have an exact synonym, in every place, uniformly translated
throughout our English Bible (in other words, a word for word translation). It is easily demonstrated that the
Hebrew/Greek Texts themselves, when quoting them selves (Hebrew to Greek), do not demand the same degree of
strictness which Hymers and Hudson demand.
King James Bible Correctors might well be consistent and either preach from the Hebrew/Greek or from "Berry's
Interlinear." Ah, yes, even "Berry's Interlinear" cannot meet their requirements. Nothing can meet their requirements
(which is the way that they like it). If an exact "word for word" English twin were possible and could really qualify as a
"translation," what then would these Bible Correctors have to do? Hymers and Hudson discount, from their theories,
idioms, available synonyms for specific contexts, cultural mind sets, and customs from being taken into consideration.
(Indefinite and definite articles alone would be enough to cause havoc among Russians who say, "I put book on table.")
This is why they err so foolishly. Evangelist Hudson should spend more time investigating the TR's quotes of the
Masoretic Text rather than the petty fault finding, of the King James Bible, to which they have engaged themselves. For
instance, why does the TR say, in Hebrews 11:21, "RABDOU" (staff) when the Masoretic says "mittah" (bed)? Or why
does Acts 7:43 call the god of Psalm 45:6, "REMPHAN," while the Masoretic Text calls him "Kiyuwn" (Chiun)?
In other words, why not engage them selves in solving some real problems instead of being problems. Amen?
Bible Correctors, armed with a concordance, need only take a sentence to cry "Wolf!" However, it may take pages to
undo these attacks on the King James Bible and a believer's faith. They, of course, Bible Correctors will continue to find
their "Handfuls on Purpose" (errors), and we will continue to believe God's Rook!
We would like to request our Bible correcting friends to explain how the wording in Hebrews 1:8, in the Textus
Receptus, "TON AIONONA TOU AIONOS" (the age of the age), when quoting Psalm 45:6, "Oulom" (forever), is
superior to our uninspired English "forever?" Now, we do realize that Gary R. Hudson is without a “cross” to preach or
to bear, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who only have a "STAUROS" or torture STAKE (possibly, they also have a "tree"
without "branches" - Acts 13:29; Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23). Nevertheless, then, again, why not worry more about the
underlying language of "Easter" and "churches" and "synagogues?" Ho hum
NOTE: The external material and sources, which we have quoted, are not to be considered our final authority on
these matters. We are satisfied with the internal evidence within our Authorized English Bible. We have quoted these
external sources, in answer to specific challenges and 'objections, in order to expose (on their own turf) the deception and
duplicity of those who would grasp at any straw and go to any length to find an error in the King James Bible. We are not
impressed with history, external source material, or even our own research. We are impressed with God's word, our final
Authority, which THROUGHLY furnishes the man of God unto ALL good works.
– by Herb Evans